Talk:Department of Finance/Budget
Shouldn't the DoCHE be allotted some mone for the upkeep of national monuments. HORTON11 18:44, June 4, 2011 (UTC) Yes, the current $4,000,000 is just for education. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 20:23, June 4, 2011 (UTC) This is absolutly amazing on what your doing! Hopefully we can find a way to pass this. But as always there are minor differences between, Progressive-Socialism and liberalism. I say more for Health Care and education, and give a very small ammount to tourism. This looks promising. Marcus/Michael Villanova 00:38, June 5, 2011 (UTC) Foreign affairs I made a very nice budget plan I would like you to have a look at. Numbers can be adjusted, though I did my best to deliver a good motivation. 10:26, June 10, 2011 (UTC) Could those be cut? I don't want Foreign Affairs spending over 40 million dollars. :/ Reducing the donations would be great. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 00:13, June 30, 2011 (UTC) Lovia isn't too outgoing internationally, so maybe we could reduce spending for International developement. BTW this might be my last edit for a bit. HORTON11 00:40, June 30, 2011 (UTC) I got it, cut the spending. If I would regain this post I will do so myself, if not it is up to my successor. 06:11, June 30, 2011 (UTC) K. The $4,000,000 for administration is a good amount, I added it, but the donations are in excess. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 11:55, June 30, 2011 (UTC) Spending - Revenue = ? I set up those tourism programs for revunue. So remember to put in the revenue it brings in so we have an accurate book keeping. Marcus/Michael Villanova 14:03, June 30, 2011 (UTC) As you can see on the page, I did yesterday. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 14:25, June 30, 2011 (UTC) It looks good! I should do something like this soon! — Christopher Costello (Pikapi • Chat • ) 22:44, March 27, 2012 (UTC) Question Is this budget working for the old census or the (hopefully) future census? For the old census in which Lovia has 22,000 inhabitants it's definitively too much. For the future census it could work though. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 09:39, March 28, 2012 (UTC) I guess so. I was focusing on the proportion of money distribution, though, so I didn't make it for either. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 11:13, March 28, 2012 (UTC) That's strange. There is probably a slight difference between 200.000 and 20.000 inhabitants when it comes to finance :) --OuWTBsjrief-mich 04:23, April 4, 2012 (UTC) There is, but I have nothing more than a slight of idea of how much money is needed for each number. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 12:53, April 4, 2012 (UTC) Looks good, but: # I think we could kick up education, health and welfare by quite a bit. # Remember welfare includes disability benefits, child benefits, etc. # Also, I think Transport and Leisure is overfunded - I reckon LSCA and various tourist attractions can practically pay for themselves. # How about housing? Should we have some form of social housing for the worse off? # For the sake of realism, should we have a debt repayment section? # We need to discuss how progressive this is going to be. Personally I think we should have at the very least an obligation to buy health insurance, and preferably a national health service. # We still need to do taxes! For that we probably need to make up values for average wealth of citizens etc. so we know how much to steal tax. Quite a long list, sorry. :P --Semyon 19:03, April 4, 2012 (UTC) I would really like to see a funded medicare system, kinda like the one in Canada but more like the Freench or even UK systems. HORTON11: • 19:54, April 4, 2012 (UTC) Which taxes should we have? —TimeMaster (talk • ) 12:49, April 5, 2012 (UTC) @the health care system - just throwing moeny at health care doesn't mean you have universal health care, we'd hve to adopt a law of course, the tourism is very very productive so you have to put maybe 0$ into that. For the taxes, we should obviously have income, property, tariffs, corporate, VAT, National Insurance, fuel duties, stamp duties, alchoal tax. Those are all the other revenues I can think of. Marcus/Michael Villanova 15:11, April 7, 2012 (UTC) No, no, no. We don't need over taxation, income tax and national insurance are about the only ones we need, they are the best taxes of them all. property tax is just silly and barely brings in revenue anyway, we shouldn't bother wasting our time with it. tariffs discourage trade and Lovia needs to be a nation based upon free trade, we should make it so that businesses can easily trade with the world after all Lovian businesses are hugely powerful and there is little chance of foriegn businesses appearing here. corporate tax is just a tax on the poor and an attack on the economy, the profits of a company are taxed and therefore to make the same amount of money they either increase prices or decrease the rate at which they pay their employees and that means employees and customers are most hurt, and the majority of these people are poor, along with that the less profit there is means that theres less to reinvest to grow industry. VAT is another tax on the poor, adding to the cost of their goods, the company never pays it, and it doesn't affect the rich, it affects those with the least amount of disposable income most and who are they? the poor. Fuel duties are another attack on the poor, increasing the cost of their fuel taking more of their hard earned pay away, and making harder for those who have to commute often to pay for themselves. stamp duties are another silly low income tax that we shouldn't bother with and alcohol tax is just gives a chance for criminals to sell things such as industrial alcohol at a cheaper price than actual drinks manufacturers. We need a simple tax system that we can ensure doesn't even touch the poor, we can do this with income tax and national insurance. National insurance can pay for benefits and healthcare and Income tax can pay for the rest. Kunarian 09:29, April 8, 2012 (UTC) Income tax is another tax on the poor, it takes some of their little income away. So make all these things progressive! For the VAT (that's the same thing as a sales tax in the US, right?), it's not that hard to give a person/family money back (a rebate). Same with fuel duties (fuel tax?), stamp duties (stamp tax?), and property tax is the opposite of silly. It makes rich people who want to have mansions and ranches pay more to get those things (we can pay a rebate to farmers), while if you want to take less land (such as poor people), you pay less money. Tariffs increase the competitiveness of Lovian made goods, which is rather important, I'd say. Alcohol, marijuana, drugs (still 100% legal...), etc. need to be taxed to discourage their use while giving instead of taking money from the government. That's what makes it so much less expensive than educational programs, but still very effective. Corporate tax should be low but not nothing to make sure giant corporations give some of their unimaginable profits to the government, whose soil they did this on. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 12:15, April 8, 2012 (UTC) No because Income tax can be started at a certain point and therefore the poor aren't taxed at all. Sales tax and VAT are slightly different with VAT being the better system and why do we need rebates if we don't unessesarily so take their money in the first place. The point is we won't need rebates if we don't take their money to begin with. Plus property tax does nothing, it barely adds anything to the actual cost of the property basically its saying that as long as you don't want to aspire to own lots of land and maybe be entrepreneurial with it, you are fine. Actually could you explain the logic behind making Lovian goods more competitive with tariffs, they only add to the cost of import and export and so the only tariff that could be of any use would be import tariffs. Taxing them alcohol and drugs just makes the victims of addiction more likely to use criminals supplies or waste more money on them, they need help not less money besides the consumption is going down not up so don't tax them, you won't get rid of them completely at any point. But you take money away from the businesses, the money that should be going to their workers and into creating more jobs, goes to the government, and it isn't the governments soil, its the peoples soil THEY OWN THE GOVERNMENT we should tink of them first not think about giving ourselves the most amount of revenue. Kunarian 09:29, April 9, 2012 (UTC) :Income tax is easy to evade compared to other taxes, and is also much more of a pain on the citizens than other taxes. What makes VAT better? lol. But it is much harder to evade than other taxes, and like I said, rebates can be given to poor families, and we can get more money from the rich. If property tax did nothing it would not exist. It gets money off of rich people who want to have giant stately tracts of land, and discourages owning unnecessary amounts of land. Tariffs: They encourage people to buy Lovian goods that are made in Lovia, which supports the economy. Look up protectionism. Taxing drugs is much better than banning. We can't just have hard drugs be not taxed at all and 100% legal, like they currently are. Corporate tax: Taking away from the giant profits that go to the shareholders and owners, who are filthy rich anyway. . . it would be small so what you said doesn't happen. Also, people = government. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 00:15, April 10, 2012 (UTC) :will reply in a while 13:05, April 10, 2012 (UTC) Umm Fine but we need at least four taxes, Sales tax (like1%), Property (like again 1%-2% everything in this is taxed progressively excpet sales), National Insurance could be ranging from .5% on the poorest to 9.75% on the richest, and Income would be 10% on poorest to 46% on richest. We could also include a 10p tax rate like in the UK, which states everyone in the bottom ten percent of the countries income would pay a reduced rate on everything. So if they own property it would be like .3%, on NI just .3%, and on Income like 5%. Marcus/Michael Villanova 11:35, April 9, 2012 (UTC) Ok, I can agree to Income, National Insurance, Property and Import Tariffs. I'll give you my opinion so you know where I stand in my extreme positions: Income should not tax anyones earnings below L$30,000 so that the poor will never be in poverty, after that tax should be flat rate (as the rich will pay more anyway) of 30%, National Insurance should be 0% on the poorest and 5% on the richest, Property should also be low 0% on the cheapest and 5% on the highest and then import tariffs are up for debate. I think that we should make the system so that the bottom 10% pay nothing in taxes, therefore people would only be in there if they were in serious trouble and the complete relief from taxes would get them out as quick as they were in. Kunarian 12:06, April 9, 2012 (UTC) But then a people with a $30,001 income will have a much smaller income than those with $29,999, so it should be flat, starting from 0% at $30,000 and below, then increasing steadily unless X income, where it's at 40% or so at millionaires. I think that property tax should be maybe $10 per square hectometer (hectare?). I don't know much about National Insurance, could someone explain it to me? —TimeMaster (talk • ) 00:15, April 10, 2012 (UTC) Timemaster, What I mean is that the first L$30,000 earned are exempt from tax. L$10 per hectare would harm farmers, if anything it should be the worth of the land otherwise a big mansion with a small estate will cost less than a large farm with a tiny house. I don't know much either, currently looking it up. 13:05, April 10, 2012 (UTC) That $10 is annual, though. Not that much. We can exempt land that's used for farming, though. That income tax system is good with me. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 14:59, April 10, 2012 (UTC) Income tax is a bit too conservative, but it's ok. @TM: NI is essentially money paid into an insurance scheme by all taxpayers in order to support them when they lose their job, suffer bad health etc. They also contribute towards retirement pensions. In order to have adequate social security, therefore, I think that NI will need to be higher that 5%. 10% perhaps, up to a maximum of $10000? --Semyon 14:46, April 11, 2012 (UTC) States It might be an awkward question. Can states also collect taxes? If not, Oceana culture and language are fully ignored by this budget plan and I have to vote contra of course. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 04:24, April 8, 2012 (UTC) I don't think states can collect taxes. States should collect taxes, not the national government in my opinion however seeming as that is not likely to be agreed, I think we should devolve taxing powers so that states can have much more personal taxing program to suit their needs. Especially in the cases of Oceana, Seven and Clymene. Kunarian 09:39, April 8, 2012 (UTC) Depends. Currently, the federal government can't either. I don't see why not. Another options is for the federal government to send money grants to the states for them to use for infrastructure and culture. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 12:17, April 8, 2012 (UTC) I personally like the idea of states collecting their own taxes. Imagine someone from South Dakota having to pay for a bridge in Louisiana :P --OuWTBsjrief-mich 07:47, April 9, 2012 (UTC) States should set their own taxes, it makes it much easier then for the people in Oceana to be treated accordingly and allows them to compete properly with the economy of Slyvania, same with the other states. Instead of subsidising them why not let them set their own marks plus this would be a good way of seeing which taxes worked out best. Kunarian 09:32, April 9, 2012 (UTC) I recommend we give states power to set taxes, but within certain limits - e.g. not more than 15% of a person's income. --Semyon 10:12, April 9, 2012 (UTC) While I don't think setting taxes high is good and agree that tax shouldn't be that high, I think that states should have freedom to set taxes. That way it's much easier and will create a more important position for the governers of states. Kunarian 10:31, April 9, 2012 (UTC) Conservative states like Oceana might not collect enough money to properly upkeep their infrastructure. If there's a minimum I'd agree to it. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 00:15, April 10, 2012 (UTC) @TM: Conservative in Lovia is not like in America. Actually, in the Netherlands the progressives spend nothing on road improvement (as they are hardcore environmentalists). --OuWTBsjrief-mich 04:23, April 10, 2012 (UTC) I agree with Oos here; Lovian conservatism tends to be social rather than economic. Also, I don't see that 'states might not collect enough money to properly maintain their infrastructure' is a bigger problem than 'the federal government might not collect enough money to properly maintain their infrastructure.' :P --Semyon 14:56, April 10, 2012 (UTC) Healthcare Should we have a socialized universal healthcare system, a privatized one, or what? (discuss) Personally, I would prefer one funded by the government, but with people paying a percentage up to a certain extent, limited maybe to $10000. Then, that can be waived if someone is poor and has no wealthier relatives or friends. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 00:38, April 10, 2012 (UTC) Also, what about a system like Medicare and Medicaid in the United States? —TimeMaster (talk • ) 00:40, April 10, 2012 (UTC) In the Netherlands, we have a system called "eigen risico" (own risk). Basicly, it means the following: you have to pay your own health care up to a certain amount yourself (f.e. €400). If you only spent €150, you pay €150. If you spent €800, you pay €400 and the other €400 is paid for by the government. Certain things do not fall under government spending (plastic surgery, glasses, dentist, etc.). --OuWTBsjrief-mich 04:28, April 10, 2012 (UTC) Excellent idea. The 400 euro limit seems really low, though. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 11:01, April 10, 2012 (UTC) How about something like the Swiss model, where people pay for a basic national insurance, and most medical expenses are covered by the state for the year. HORTON11: • 14:19, April 10, 2012 (UTC) For children, all healthcare should be free, to avoid a situation where a child is denied access to treatment because of their parents' pecuniary difficulties, which aren't in any way their fault. --Semyon 14:58, April 10, 2012 (UTC) Agreed. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 22:59, April 10, 2012 (UTC) @TM: not really, I hardly spend €100 on health care each year including the dentist... --OuWTBsjrief-mich 04:42, April 11, 2012 (UTC) :Well, what if you got in an accident? That would cost a lot more than 400 euros. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 10:54, April 11, 2012 (UTC) ::Ever heard of insurances? :P --OuWTBsjrief-mich 04:31, April 12, 2012 (UTC) :::And the government would have to spend $1M on pretty much every serious accident. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 11:01, April 12, 2012 (UTC) As you probably have guessed my position is Private healthcare and medicare, I mean considering most Lovians will earn at least L$30,000 per year (considering the exemption from tax that is planned) they will all be able to pay for it however we should ensure that everyone can pay back after an emergency eg: they arrive bleeding badly are quickly treated and then may not have the insurance to cover it (I don't know how it's pretty cheap in a completely privatised system). In that situation we take from the national insurance funds and pay for their treatment, it would need to be carefully written so that people who don't pay for their own insurance can live off of it. Of course as Semyon said we should make all the basics free for children. My opinion with a few concessions as usual. Kunarian 10:45, April 11, 2012 (UTC) Private healthcare is not the way to go, plus it can be very expensive (I saw this film where some guy had to pay $60,000 to get his finger stiched on back). I was thinking perhaps having something based off of the French system. All adults would be deducted a percentage (maybe 5%) from their income monthly which would go towards the National Healthcare fund. People would then be allowed to access all basic medical/dental costs (things like plastic surgery and boob jobs shounldn't be covered). I agree that children should not have to pay so perhaps part of that monthly healthcare contribution would be usablt towards children. HORTON11: • 13:02, April 11, 2012 (UTC) I think by now we can say that we all agree on the matter of children getting free health/medicare. State Healthcare/medicare is just as expensive if not more so, plus it forces everyone to pay for something they may never use, I mean I have used the NHS only three times in my entire life, the rest of the time I have got on with things, if the NHS was privatised in the UK then it would actually be cheaper for me. State healthcare/medicare is cheaper for those who are either careless or unlucky and more expensive for those who are more independent or simply careful. Examination of both has proven that neither system can be called better on actual treatment (unless you are talking about cheery doctors and nurses, then private wins), so the question isn't cost or treatment but the question is truly is it worth subsidising fully grown adults who are irresponsible at worst or simply unlucky at best to the detriment of other adults who are responsible or careful. Kunarian 15:36, April 11, 2012 (UTC) No offence, but arguing 'well private insurance is cheaper for me' is a little selfish. :P As you pointed out, lots of people have to use the health service just because of bad luck, and I think we have to ensure that people aren't penalised for something that isn't their fault, on top of an illness which may have wrecked their life, even if it means we have to 'force everyone to pay for something they may never use.' --Semyon 16:34, April 11, 2012 (UTC) I was pointing out that it would be cheaper for me, it is no more selfish to point out that state insurance is cheaper for others. Yes we do have to ensure that people aren't penalised for things that aren't there fault but in saying that you become hypocritical because forcing people to pay for something they may never use is penalising them for other peoples faults. Kunarian 16:40, April 11, 2012 (UTC) I understand your point, but I still think that it's less unfair to have a national health service. Well, perhaps we could have a system where the government pays for certain health treatments, but not things such as injuries from drunk driving, drug treatments, etc. (Though in cases of drug abuse it might be worth the government's while to pay for rehab.) --Semyon 19:12, April 11, 2012 (UTC) Fairness is a factor yes but don't forget Viability, as most state health/medicare expenditures skyrocket quickly, or other important factors like Competitiveness, which helps lower costs and increase quality. Yes I think we need a system that helps out those in need however we must try our very best to not make it a something for nothing system, there needs to be a way to tell those who would be careless because they think government is always there and a way to tell those who decided not to get insurance that it is very important to consider it. Kunarian 19:31, April 11, 2012 (UTC) Compilation *Children (under 12? 15? 18?) get free medical care. *5% of someone's income over L$30000 goes to a National Healthcare Insurance fund. *A person pays L$500 of their own healthcare. *Anything beyond L$500 is paid out of the NHI fund. *Certain things, such as plastic surgery, cannot be paid out of the NHI fund. *Injuries that are not by chance, such as injuries from drunk driving, will require more money from the injuree but still get assistance (how much?) from the NHI fund. I have two questions in there. This is what I could come up with. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 11:12, April 13, 2012 (UTC) *I'd say children under 16 get free healthcare, as well as those under 18 who remain in school. *5% is yearly, I presume? *Is the $500 limit per year or per illness? *I'd prefer a slightly more sophisticated definition for the fifth point than 'certain things' - perhaps 'treatments for conditions that do not pose a risk to the patient's mental or physical health.' *The maximum payment by the patient becomes $2000 rather than $500 when injuries are not by chance, perhaps? Apart from these minor points, I like this proposal. It seems a nice compromise between liberal and social-democratic viewpoints. :) --Semyon 12:54, April 13, 2012 (UTC) I like this compromise very much but I have some suggestions to add: *Children would be people still within full time education (below 18) or below 16 - like semyon said *5% monthly, tax monthly, yearly is normally far too much of a hassle. *I'll agree on the basis that Oos said it worked well, I'm not fimiliar with the system. *Plastic surgery is medicare (well in the catogory) and so is covered by the next point. *I would say that when it comes to medicare, it should be insurance based, medicare always gets out of hand when you start interferring plus you use medicare rarely compared to healthcare and most people will be able to afford it. Timemasters compromise fits the healthcare points and how we should fund it, but I don't know whether we are ready to conclude on medicare yet. Kunarian 14:45, April 13, 2012 (UTC) Okay: How about below (but not at) 15 receive free healthcare, and those still in school or in college below (but not at) 18 also receive free healthcare. Tax annually, it's much less of a hassle than monthly. Medicare is a system of getting extra money for medical care that will not be useful in a National Insurance system and has nothing to do with plastic surgery. Medicare is sort of like the NI system but more privatized and less entitlements, and it's not true insurance. So should we move this to First Chamber and draw up a law? —TimeMaster (talk • ) 17:13, April 13, 2012 (UTC) Ok three things: why not below 16? how is annually less hassle, when monthly is a much more secure system? and can you clarify what medicare is and the difference between that and healthcare in your understanding? because I'm really having to question your points here considering we seem to be at different points. Kunarian 17:26, April 13, 2012 (UTC) I agree with timeMaster here, a single yearly contribution is much simpler and people wouldn't need to worry about monthly payments. And the healthcare system should not be with insurance companies, since they are out to get as much money. The system is such a hassle and expensive (even our minor medical visits are pricey), so it is much better if the state handles the healthcare system. HORTON11: • 20:08, April 13, 2012 (UTC) 1. Because 15 is a multiple of 3. Age limits should ideally all be a multiple of 3. 2. Monthly is not more secure at all, and annually is less of hassle because you have to do it only once a year, not twelve times a year. 3. Search it on Wikipedia, it's a US thing. If we have National Insurance, we won't need it, though. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 23:13, April 13, 2012 (UTC) Also, I just read the Social Security Act. We do have a National Healthcare Service that operates hospitals and such. I don't know if that'll create any conflict. Take a look at Federal Law and see for yourself. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 01:52, April 14, 2012 (UTC) I was able to expand/improve the network of hospitals but there is no service for public healthcare, I think. HORTON11: • 13:15, April 14, 2012 (UTC) Ok then everything is good, we just need a secure law. However I don't agree with a national healthcare service, they are far too expensive and theres already a load of hospitals here. Kunarian 11:33, April 15, 2012 (UTC) We already have one. Currently it just says that the NHS operates all hospitals, so we don't have any private hospitals. This is in law, we'll need to change the law if you want it to be a different way. See Federal Law. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 13:25, April 15, 2012 (UTC) Nevermind, there are both government and private hospitals. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 22:48, April 16, 2012 (UTC)